The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

ChrisHeathcote said:
I quite often use longer lengths for landscape. It gives a different feeling due to the compression. I find the feelings evoked by wide angles are wow nice view, whereas with a telephoto it's more of a feeling of being part of the image. It also works well if you want to pick out a particular feature or building. I was looking the other day at some great landscapes taken with the 100-400 GM
Click to expand...

I'd love a 100-400 GM, would be awesome for some landscape shooting!
 
chrism_scotland said:
I have to admit having very briefly played with an M240 for a weekend I don't think the Leica "look" think is rubbish but I think many of the systems have a look of their own, Fuji in particular.


I've really grown to like the look I get from the Loxia glass (and liked the 24-70 GM "look") it's all subjective though!
Click to expand...

I see the appeal of the RF's for what they are, well made manual RF's, but I'm too tight to buy one :D I had a Canonet and a Voigtlander :D

I'm not having a pop at digital non RF Leica's per se just this wooly oooh it's so good for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on language. If it was a Panny or a Sony they'd find the language... and there's plenty of things they could say such as the colour is accurate and pleasing, the noise is very well controlled and the transitions of colour and contrast are superb leading to very attractive files which by the way are very malleable and stand up well to quite heavy processing.

Something like that would please and entice me more than some vague and possibly sycophantic drivel.

All IMVHO of course.

:D

I do like the clean uncluttered layout though.
 
Snow!

We were in a hotel at the coast last night and Mrs Woof Woof was overjoyed to see snow when we woke up as she's never seen it up close before. She was much less keen to be out in it though :D Getting out of the hotel and back home was interesting and she videoed much of the drive :D No pictures yet as this is a Sony thread and I had my Panny GX80 with me :D We were going to go out for a walk and I was going to take my A7 but she's currently hiding upstairs :D
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
I quite often use longer lengths for landscape. It gives a different feeling due to the compression. I find the feelings evoked by wide angles are wow nice view, whereas with a telephoto it's more of a feeling of being part of the image. It also works well if you want to pick out a particular feature or building. I was looking the other day at some great landscapes taken with the 100-400 GM
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people on forums who seem to believe that you have to have a 12-24mm for landscape. Like you I think that longer lenses can be use very effectively.
 
woof woof said:
Snow!

We were in a hotel at the coast last night and Mrs Woof Woof was overjoyed to see snow when we woke up as she's never seen it up close before. She was much less keen to be out in it though :D Getting out of the hotel and back home was interesting and she videoed much of the drive :D No pictures yet as this is a Sony thread and I had my Panny GX80 with me :D We were going to go out for a walk and I was going to take my A7 but she's currently hiding upstairs :D
Click to expand...

you silly sausage. its "The amazing sony a7/a9 /and anything else welcome Thread"
 
woof woof said:
There are a lot of people on forums who seem to believe that you have to have a 12-24mm for landscape. Like you I think that longer lenses can be use very effectively.
Click to expand...

I have to agree on the ultra wide thing, tbh the only time I've found something from 12-20 of real use was when videoing a show for someone. I tend to prefer 21mm as my widest (hence the Loxia) but really a 24-70 (@24, 35, 50 and 70) does for most landscaping.
 
A7 and 35mm f2.8.

DSC08714.jpg

Throwing her first snowball :D

DSC08715.jpg

Making another.

DSC08735.jpg

"I will kick you."

DSC08737.jpg

DSC08756.jpg
 
Last edited:
First test of my Tokina 17mm and on the subject of booze.

DSC08763.jpg

DSC08782.jpg

It seems ok... it seems sharp enough in the central area wide open and the corners don't look toooo bad and there's scope enough to play with DoF and distortion.

When we get some decent weather and light I'll take it out for a road test. My plan is to crop the worst of the corners out if they're bad and still end up with a wide shot. I'll then decide if I'm keeping this 17mm or the Vivitar 19mm or buying a sooper dooper modern wide lens.
 
Last edited:
If you think being alco free is bad... wait until you taste it... :(

Amazingly she likes it :D
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Where is snow,we haven't had any,?
Click to expand...

The North Yorkshire and Cleveland areas.

It was very bad on Thursday morning and the roads were very difficult to drive on but by the afternoon it was beginning to go and this morning there's no trace of it left.

I was really happy for my Mrs as she's only ever seen snow on the hills from the car as we've driven through the moors and hills and this was the first time she'd walked and played in it but from a photography point of view it wasn't great light, in fact the light was quite awful really. I'm hoping for more snow and more photogenic light :D

PS.
About driving. We stayed in a hotel I'd stayed in a few years ago. That time I took my MX5 and it got stuck in the snow trying to leave the hotel grounds and when the hotel manager tried to tow me out with his Land Rover he drove straight into my little MX5 and put a lovely big dent in it. My car was stuck there for three weeks. This time we went in my Hyundai Getz and it only just made it out of the hotel grounds. The drive home was a nightmare.

Anyway, it's all gone now.
 
Last edited:
So last weekend I shot the Abu Dhabi GP with a pair of Sony A9's and an A7RIII.

Having been a Nikon shooter for nearly a decade, it has been interesting for the past few months getting used to the A9 with a view to making a permanent switch of system.

There are plenty of pro's for the Sony gear, but easily as many con's, the biggest for anyone in my position being the complete lack of long, fast prime. Why they launched the A9 directed at sports and wildlife photographers without having a clear roadmap of professional (sorry, having used it extensively, the 100-400 is not a professional lens) lenses is beyond me.

The battery life way good, very good in fact, regularly utilising the ultra fast fps of the camera for panning shots. It took me a long time to get used to the lack of blackout from the viewfinder, especially when shooting down at 1/20th and below, but it all came together during the weekend. Now I wonder if I'll ever be able to go back to having an analogue viewfinder.

The lenses are brilliant. I have the 16-35 2.8, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 - all excellent. No problems in that front.

I also shot with the 300 2.8 G lens adapted. Not convinced by the combo. Quite a few times it just didn't focus. There felt to be a lot of slack in the mounts between body, adaptor and lens, but then when it did focus, it was incredibly sharp.

I used the A7RIII for mainly pit and paddock shots. Quality seems good up to 1600ISO, however as Adobe have yet to introduce it in LR I cannot process these properly just yet. I only had a camera a short period before the race weekend, so I'm still undecided if it was settings, camera or user, but it wouldn't track focus properly for toffee. The more static pit/paddock shots it had no problem with either the 70-200 or 85mm, however with the 70-200 on track, I've got nothing useable.

There's a huge benefit for a switch to this type of system for me, especially weight. It was so refreshing being able to head out with most of the gear needed to shoot a session without having kilo's of bodies added to it. The 400mm is desperately needed to make it a more serious contender.

I'll share some photos once printed by editors.
 
Impspeed said:
So last weekend I shot the Abu Dhabi GP with a pair of Sony A9's and an A7RIII.

Having been a Nikon shooter for nearly a decade, it has been interesting for the past few months getting used to the A9 with a view to making a permanent switch of system.

There are plenty of pro's for the Sony gear, but easily as many con's, the biggest for anyone in my position being the complete lack of long, fast prime. Why they launched the A9 directed at sports and wildlife photographers without having a clear roadmap of professional (sorry, having used it extensively, the 100-400 is not a professional lens) lenses is beyond me.

The battery life way good, very good in fact, regularly utilising the ultra fast fps of the camera for panning shots. It took me a long time to get used to the lack of blackout from the viewfinder, especially when shooting down at 1/20th and below, but it all came together during the weekend. Now I wonder if I'll ever be able to go back to having an analogue viewfinder.

The lenses are brilliant. I have the 16-35 2.8, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 - all excellent. No problems in that front.

I also shot with the 300 2.8 G lens adapted. Not convinced by the combo. Quite a few times it just didn't focus. There felt to be a lot of slack in the mounts between body, adaptor and lens, but then when it did focus, it was incredibly sharp.

I used the A7RIII for mainly pit and paddock shots. Quality seems good up to 1600ISO, however as Adobe have yet to introduce it in LR I cannot process these properly just yet. I only had a camera a short period before the race weekend, so I'm still undecided if it was settings, camera or user, but it wouldn't track focus properly for toffee. The more static pit/paddock shots it had no problem with either the 70-200 or 85mm, however with the 70-200 on track, I've got nothing useable.

There's a huge benefit for a switch to this type of system for me, especially weight. It was so refreshing being able to head out with most of the gear needed to shoot a session without having kilo's of bodies added to it. The 400mm is desperately needed to make it a more serious contender.

I'll share some photos once printed by editors.
Click to expand...

So the a9 whoops the a7riii for af?
 
Impspeed said:
So last weekend I shot the Abu Dhabi GP with a pair of Sony A9's and an A7RIII.

Having been a Nikon shooter for nearly a decade, it has been interesting for the past few months getting used to the A9 with a view to making a permanent switch of system.

There are plenty of pro's for the Sony gear, but easily as many con's, the biggest for anyone in my position being the complete lack of long, fast prime. Why they launched the A9 directed at sports and wildlife photographers without having a clear roadmap of professional (sorry, having used it extensively, the 100-400 is not a professional lens) lenses is beyond me.

The battery life way good, very good in fact, regularly utilising the ultra fast fps of the camera for panning shots. It took me a long time to get used to the lack of blackout from the viewfinder, especially when shooting down at 1/20th and below, but it all came together during the weekend. Now I wonder if I'll ever be able to go back to having an analogue viewfinder.

The lenses are brilliant. I have the 16-35 2.8, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 - all excellent. No problems in that front.

I also shot with the 300 2.8 G lens adapted. Not convinced by the combo. Quite a few times it just didn't focus. There felt to be a lot of slack in the mounts between body, adaptor and lens, but then when it did focus, it was incredibly sharp.

I used the A7RIII for mainly pit and paddock shots. Quality seems good up to 1600ISO, however as Adobe have yet to introduce it in LR I cannot process these properly just yet. I only had a camera a short period before the race weekend, so I'm still undecided if it was settings, camera or user, but it wouldn't track focus properly for toffee. The more static pit/paddock shots it had no problem with either the 70-200 or 85mm, however with the 70-200 on track, I've got nothing useable.

There's a huge benefit for a switch to this type of system for me, especially weight. It was so refreshing being able to head out with most of the gear needed to shoot a session without having kilo's of bodies added to it. The 400mm is desperately needed to make it a more serious contender.

I'll share some photos once printed by editors.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear some positive be feedback on the Sony system however I’m surprised you didn’t get any useable action / tracking shots on the A7R III.
 
There's a review of the 50mm f2.8 macro on Ken Rockwell's site.

I agree with him when he says that the focus is awful and that it hunts but he doesn't mention the failures to focus accurately even when it locked on to something that I found. If anyone does another FE 50mm f2.8 macro I'll have a look but if the sample I had of the Sony lens is anything like representative I wouldn't waste my time on it. Mine was optically good but focus wise for speed and accuracy it was just utter garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top